Approximate Recursive Bayesian Filtering methods for robot visual search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual servoing is an essential enabling technology for robots operating in semi- and un-structured contexts, such as robot assistants working in collaboration with people. However, due to dynamic and unpredictable nature of such environments, existing methods of target tracking can lose visibility of task/target, leading to servo failure. In such situations, it is desirable that the robot reacquire the target in an autonomous/automatic fashion. In this paper we take a fresh look at this problem by examining the simplified case of a pan-tilt mounted camera visually searching for a lost target. We adopt Lost Target Search techniques based on Recursive Bayesian Filtering algorithms that have been applied to other search platforms such as aerial search and rescue. We investigated both an approximate grid-based filter and a sequential Monte Carlo method, namely particle filter. In both cases we use a new sensor-based observation model. The particle filter exhibited superior performance over approximate grid-based filter in our simulations, and was utilized in a follow-on experiment. In the experiment, we improved the particle filter performance by considering the a priori target tracking information in the motion model. Finally, we discuss the implications of this approach to higher degree of freedom robot systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".